Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions VI

[Scorpion82]

If I was being fanciful, I might see AASM as a likely weapon for the Norvenich Typhoons. Germany hasn't got PWIV or EGBU-16, and laser JDAM hasn't been integrated. Germany has to buy something for its P1E Typhoons, or integrate a new-to-Typhoon weapon.

AASM would give a weapon that would complement Tornado capabilities.

But they'll probably just buy some PWIV.

It would be a nice addition, but I doubt it. Right now the Luftwaffe intends to introduce the GBU-48 aka EGBU-16 in 2015, plus the TIP variant (Trojan Improved Demonstrator) which replaces the GBU-48's 202 kg warhead with a 20 kg warhead and adds a steel penetrator. JaboG 31 intends to start evaluating the Typhoon in the AG role from summer this year onwards. GBU-16 has been stated as a possible interim option until the GBU-48 becomes available, but we may see the JaboG 31 Typhoons flying training missions and simulating the employment of AG munitions only until the GBU-48/TIP are being introduced. FOC status is currently planned for 2016.

[Jackonicko]

Two steps to easy integration:
1. Add UAI support to next Blk batch (Fighter Mfg does this)
2. Add UAI to whatever weapon you have (Weapon Mfg does this)

Problem solved.

They're looking at data driven weapons.

[SpudmanWP]

UAI covers (or will) everything (JDAMS, LGB, JSWO, JASSM, Dumb bombs, SDB, etc).

[swerve]

Two steps to easy integration:
1. Add UAI support to next Blk batch (Fighter Mfg does this)
2. Add UAI to whatever weapon you have (Weapon Mfg does this)

Problem solved.

The thing that baffles me about UAI is why it wasn't done at least 20 years ago. When I first discovered how weapons integration was done (a long time ago) I was astonished. I'd previously assumed that some UAI-like system would be used, because it's so blindingly obvious.

[swerve]

This link puts the JSM as being lighter and shorter than the NSM at 370 kg given the absence of the rocket booster section.

Still heavier than Marte, especially the fast jet version, which is lighter (270kg) for the same reason.

[Aurel]

Unless it gains a lot of weight in development, the Kongsberg JSM would be an excellent fit for the Typhoon since its roughly in the same category as the Marte-ER. A Typhoon with CFTs and possibly heavier drop tanks carrying four JSMs-that's some stand-off strike capability :diablo:!!

And why would any Eurofighter nation buy military hardware from Norway ? Maybe the Saudis won't care about staged fighter competitions, but the original partner nations better should.

[SpudmanWP]

The thing that baffles me about UAI is why it wasn't done at least 20 years ago. When I first discovered how weapons integration was done (a long time ago) I was astonished. I'd previously assumed that some UAI-like system would be used, because it's so blindingly obvious.

The only reason I can think of is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. That and avionics hardware/software tends to lag behind everything else because they want to make sure that it is very stable.

[Jwcook]

And why would any Eurofighter nation buy military hardware from Norway ? Maybe the Saudis won't care about staged fighter competitions, but the original partner nations better should.

Quite right, when Norway buys Eurofighter then the Norwegians may have a larger market share than with the JSF, but there is more than meets the eye with the JSF and politics, the US can bring enormous pressure to bear and its not shy about using it.

[Common Sense]

Still heavier than Marte, especially the fast jet version, which is lighter (270kg) for the same reason.

Of course, but the issue is that it's weight is significantly less than that of the GBU-16 series currently cleared for the Typhoon and dimensions (diameter and length) are also likely to be similar. While having significantly greater range than the Marte and probably a more stealthy attack profile with its newer design. But then as other posters have argued, this discussion is unlikely to go beyond the realm of fanboy dreams!!

[TMor]

@Scorpion82 :

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/...&t=1610#p11627

Is this opening post up-to-date ?

[Jackonicko]

No, it's not, TMor.

It doesn't mention the post MDC software drops on Tranche 1, for example (Drop 3 is now flying, drop 2 is on service aircraft).

It doesn't mention CORP.

And much of the Tranche 2/3 stuff is just plain wrong. Tranche 2 never flew with SRP 4, but started with 5.0 and is now on 5.1, and is about to go to SRP 10.

Don't get me wrong. Scorpion did a great job on this and I applaud him for it, but things have moved on, and at the moment in particular, things are moving very rapidly indeed.

The exact content of SRP10 (P1EA) and SRP12 (P1EB) is hard to pin down, as P1EA includes more than 40% more than was originally contracted (some of it pulled forward from P1EB) and P1EB also has 'as much' new content.

EF GmbH apparently don't want to talk about P1E until Farnborough.

Beyond P1E, all bets are off, as the Saudi programme and Contract One seem to be ushering in a whole new way of integrating new kit on the aircraft outside the grindingly slow quadrinational SRP release process. This promises to erode Rafale's weapons integration advantage pretty quickly.

[Scorpion82]

I'm still working on a comprehensive update, but I'm rather buisy these days. It will take some time, albeit I'm close to it.

[TMor]

Thank you Jack.

I feel I should add that my approch is sincere (nothing to do with Rafale). It's in fact very hard to 'know' the Typhoon since its upgrades seems to change all the time...

That's why I asked Scorpion about his message. But, hey, Scorpion, don't worry ! This is not very important to me. It's only a hobby

[emile]

It seems that 1500L external droppable fuel tank will never be carried by Typhoon.

[EELightning]

It seems that 1500L external droppable fuel tank will never be carried by Typhoon.

For A/A, if they're not designed for supersonic speeds and maneuverability then they'll limit Typhoon's performance, so they'll be more of a hindrance than an advantage despite the extra fuel.

For A/G, whether they would be designed for supersonic performance or not is hardly a concern, for the same amount of fuel and with less drag and two extra stations one would be much better off with Conformal Fuel Tanks. The latter are the way to go in my opinion.

[EELightning]

A different/new nose fitted to a particular Typhoon at BAE Systems Warton.

Thanks to Falcon001 from Fighter Control.

http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/foru...p?f=16&t=56402

Trials for the Captor-E maybe?

[bloodshot]

Interesting photos, the new nose cone has what looks like a fixture for a pitot tube although one isn't fitted, and the blue patch on the side looks to be covering something, possibly a sensor head or opening for a cooling duct ?

I think that it is unlikely that this new nosecone has been fitted for radar trials, given the fixture and the apertures on the side I would say that the nose probably isn't even housing any radar but rather flight test instrumentation. My money would be on this being used for flight envelope expansion if it weren't for the lack of any actual pitot tube and the pair of ASRAAM being carried.

Does anybody know if ZJ700 actually flew that day ?

[Giblets]

Don't think it flew, however ZJ700 is IPA5 and is the aircraft that is supposed to e conducting trials of the AESA

[bloodshot]

Cheers Giblets, I just noticed the last post from trembler1 on that thread which seems to agree with that.

Perhaps just fit testing for the new radar then ?

The nosecone looks like those that where fitted to the DA's for flight testing, which were not functional radomes as they were constructed of aluminium and were used purely for carrying flight instrumentation AFAIK.

[Giblets]

I guess this could be due to a number of different things;
testing a radome that would be required for the AESA, most of the earlier reports stated that an AESA would be flying in 'the 2013 timeframe', so this could just be testing a few designs and if it affects handling, airflow etc at all.

Alternatively, BAe and Eurofighter might be pushing the date forward, especially with the feedback from foreign sales around needing a clear AESA and development programe. To have one flying would pretty much clear that one up

[EELightning]

Personally I've never heard of anything recently, or the past few months even, about trials with the Captor-E actually fitted to Typhoon around this current time, i.e. early '12. Quite the opposite in fact given various snippets.

Trembler1's post on Fighter Control makes sense and may indeed compliment what Giblets' theory about the date being pushed forward due to foreign interest. Most notably South Korea.

Minus the red intake cover, its the first time I've seen other covers on various vents etc in blue. Others I've seen have been red. And some on places I wouldn't expect. Odd, to me at least.

[Giblets]

Looks like the red covers are German/ italian, have looked at a few images, and would appear the Germans have specially made covers, and BAe commonly use the blue tape during maintenance, I guess this shows the kind of work they have been doing on the airframe, not just sticking on a new nosecone:

[bloodshot]

If it weren't for the features seen on the radome I would say that testing of a new radar Captor-E or possibly even Bright Adder would seem the most logical explanation.

If you look at photo's of the DA's you will see that the nosecone fitted with AOA/pitot boom was only used for flight testing and was exchanged with a normal radome at all other times.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the new radome isn't associated with testing of the radar though as the increased weight and shift in the CG may have been significant enough to have required qualification through a series of flight trials before testing of the radar itself could begin.

[bloodshot]

The red covers are the same that are used by all the operators, and the clear blue wraps are normally used to temporarily cover open or unfinished areas during production. I'm not much of a spotter but perhaps IPA5 has been under wraps for a while undergoing the necessary modifications and this is just the first time she's been wheeled back out of the hangar ?

[Jackonicko]

@Scorpion82 :

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/...&t=1610#p11627

Is this opening post up-to-date ?

Is there something similar on Rafale, detailing the full extent of changes from F2 to F3, (F3 to F3-04T is easier), what the F4 would have been, and giving details of when new iterations of SPECTRA came in, etc.?

[TMor]

I plan on writing such an article on my forum, but it's time consuming and I can't do it right now.

[EELightning]

If it weren't for the features seen on the radome I would say that testing of a new radar Captor-E or possibly even Bright Adder would seem the most logical explanation.

If Captor-E is coming along swimmingly then why would Bright Adder seem the most logical explanation? Unless Bright Adder is more developed than Captor-E and might be a better radar and, or, the UK see Black Adder as an insurance policy in case Captor-E doesn't come online for whichever reason.

Apparantly, the first image of Typhoon's HUD to be released: With an F-16 in it's crosshairs;

http://theaviationist.com/2012/04/26/typhoon-kill/

[Jackonicko]

I wouldn't want to speak for Bloodshot, but I think he meant to say:

If it weren't for the features seen on the radome I would say that the most logical explanation would be testing of a new radar. This radar could be CAPTOR-E or possibly even Bright Adder.

This aircraft (IPA5) was always expected to be one of the Quadrinational CAPTOR-E testbeds, whereas we’d expected Bright Adder to be tested on BT025 or BT026.

Bright Adder is notionally a technology demonstrator (for advanced AESA capabilities required by the UK, thought to include Electronic Attack), nothing more, though in fact it could stand as the basis for a production radar, and therefore is a de facto insurance policy.

There seems little doubt that Bright Adder is more developed than CAPTOR-E. It’s flying on a rotary wing testbed, and elements of it are also flying on a Piper Navajo, and probably still on the Tornado TREV (the original ARTS testbed). Whereas EF GmbH are still issuing press releases about the Quadrinational AESA describing how pilots like what they’ve been shown about CAPTOR-E in the simulator.

There have also been suggestions that the requirement for Bright Adder was more advanced and more demanding than that for CAPTOR-E, so it may be that Bright Adder is more advanced as well as more developed.

It is, however, a UK programme, so were it to become the basis for CAPTOR-E, the Germans (for example), who like to think that they lead the Quadrinational radar effort, might be just a little miffed.

[mrmalaya]

Now, I may not know much but my understanding was that Bright Adder was a study of how to implement Electronic Attack with a Typhoon AESA rather than a radar in itself.

Have I got completely the wrong end of the stick?

Edit- Thanks Jackonicko for clearing that up, I was partially right then. If true, a more advanced AESA with offensive potential as a driving requirement is as exportable as SPECTRA with cloaking device

[Jackonicko]

Because Bright Adder was already pretty far advanced when the Quadrinational AESA programme lumbered into life, I get the feeling that its remit was widened. It offered the opportunity to get an early look at the repositioner and at other AESA features, long before the Quadrinational programme could provide flying hardware. And for the Brits, Bright Adder started to look like an excellent insurance policy if the Quadrinational programme faltered, or if it looked as though it would not deliver the capabilities required by the UK.